Earlier text: General ArticlesAfterwards, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.—Heb. 12: 17. FAINT and weary, the son of the patriarch came back from his hunting tour. He had mused by the way on his hard and sorry fortune. The spirit of enterprise had died in his bosom, and hope had left him to the peevishness of indolence and unsatisfied sensuality; when he met with his brother preparing pottage of lentils for his own refreshment. It was an evil hour for Esau; the slave of appetite, he counted not, at that moment, the worth of character, friends, or prospects. Feigning himself ready to die with hunger, he quickly made a covenant with his brother, to part with all that was truly valuable on earth, for the means of gratifying his propensity to gluttony, for this once. He was determined to have this one dinner, if he might starve in perdition forever as its penalty. The birthright so unceremoniously disposed of, was the covenant of Heaven’s favor. It was understood and seen by him, but despised by his infidel heart—God’s covenant with Abraham and his father of the possession of the land of Canaan to them and their posterity, and the heavenly inheritance of which this was the earnest and representation. He could look upon the fat valleys of Achor, the beauty of Zion, and Lebanon’s towering cedars, and feel that the possession of Canaan’s land was a worthless toy in comparison with a mess of pottage. But, what was more, he could renounce his claims to a benignant Providence here, and a heavenly paradise hereafter, for the gratifications of an hour, that would work the bitterness of death forever. But there was another day—the two youth had grown up to manhood. The venerable Isaac had come to the period of life when the infirmities of age admonished him that the duties of this world should be arranged, that, in his appointed hour, he might sleep with his fathers in peace. As high-priest of his household, he was on a certain day to consecrate the heir of the sacred covenant. His eye rested on Esau, his first-born; he sent him away to gather preparations for the solemn ceremonial. But God suffered Jacob to come in for the old man’s priestly blessing; the claim which he had long since purchased. He approved and sanctified the consecration; though He despised and abhorred the intervention of Rebecca’s intrigues and falsehoods as a means of bringing it about; as a fair representation of Jacob’s proper claims was all that was needed. Esau came back from the field, not faint and weary now, bearing a dish of savory meats with which he fondly hoped to procure his father’s blessing. But the birthright which had been sold for a mess of pottage, could not be re-purchased by a dish of savory venison. He had chosen to indulge his sensual appetite once, and he might retain his savory meats now, in the room of the blessing he had bartered away. As he learned the unwelcome truth, that the sacred ceremony was passed, and he himself was a servant among his kindred; “he stood before his father and cried with an exceeding great and bitter cry, ‘Bless me, even me also, O my father.’” But he found no place of change in this transaction, though he sought it carefully with tears. The sale of his birthright had, as it were, turned the current of the stream to the pent-up vale, whose fair and beauteous landscape was lost in consequence beneath the accumulating waters. A small transaction, in itself, but mighty in its consequences. In the case of Esau there is solemn instruction and warning to every youthful heart. For who-ever, like Esau, chooses present gratification regardless of future good, will, in the end, find that the consequences are pain and remorse, and inevitable ruin. There was no special judgment of God that visited Esau, no destroying flood as came on the antediluvian world, no storm of meteoric fire as descended on the plains of Sodom, no formal pouring out of the vials of divine wrath; but his cries and bitter tears were only the legitimate result of his own conduct. It is as the course of the sun in the firmament, or any great law of nature, that the votaries of sensuality and lust shall find wretchedness in life, bitterness in death, with accumulating horrors hovering beyond the dreadful valley. Vain regrets, nor cries, nor bitter tears, can ever bring back to the sensualized soul the heavenly peace of innocence and virtue. Another and a strange fire is enkindled on the heart’s polluted altar—a fire that sends up the tainted cloud of heaven-daring blasphemies to mock a Saviour’s love for a ruined world. But “the way of the transgressor is hard,” and neither paints nor patches, princely robes, nor bold and reckless airs, can allay the wretched anguish of the guilty soul. Close on the path of transgression comes the devouring scourge which drinks up every pleasure of the heart and leaves it to desolation and sorrow. And if there is a God in heaven or truth upon the earth, the votary of sensual pleasure will “mourn at the last, when his flesh and body are consumed, and cry how I hated instruction and my heart despised reproof, and have not obeyed the voice of my teachers, nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me.” He will seek, yet seek in vain, like Esau, that the penalty of his transgression may be abated while he gives himself up to pursue the lusts of his own heart. We say he will forever seek, for it is folly to presume that the he who now stalks through the world, the living epitome of a walking and breathing hell, until he falters under the ruinous blight of his iniquities, and hobbles down to a grave of wretched infamy, will in the resurrection find in himself a heart to be delighted with the songs of the redeemed in Paradise. No, for even here, his habits of sin grow with his growth and strengthen with his strength, until he is bound, as it were, by the chains of sinful lust, and these shall drag him downwards through the dark ways of iniquity to the chambers of eternal death. Neither in the eternal world will he find any place of repentance or change in God, though he may seek it carefully with tears. He may seek this repentance as did the rich man in hell, when he lifted up his eyes being in torment, and cried for a drop of water to cool his parched tongue. He may seek it with piteous groans or blasphemous howlings, but devils will mock his wretchedness, and heaven to him would be the severest part of hell.—Selected. CATHOLICISM AND PROGRESS.
Prominent upon the mountains and in the fields throughout New Mexico we see large crosses proclaiming that the lands were claimed for Christ long ago. There they stand as proof that these people have for centuries honored the King of kings. All this worship has been that inspired by the Catholic church. Everything is named for Saint Mary, or Saint Michael, or Saint Somebodyelse; and it is a very pertinent inquiry, Why have these people made no more advancement? Why do they hold on their even, ignorant way, century after century? Why do they still build with sun-dried brick, and plow with wooden plows? If Christianity is helpful to man, why has it not brought these devotees to better things? The march of the western European and American Christianity has been steadily forward, while this Catholic civilization is just what it was ages ago. The Catholic church has indeed been the repository of the literature and traditions and wealth of the ages past, and we honor her conservatism in that it has preserved to us of to-day ancient manuscripts, monuments, and customs, which are of unutterable value to modern science and religion. Yet what shackles she has not forged for the race which has been under her sway. To-day in New Mexico, the modern thought and progress, the outgrowth of general liberty and individual freedom, is putting itself alongside and in telling contrast with the superstition and abject servitude of this effete system. Put the New Mexican burro (pack donkey) beside the railway train; the Indian runner against the telegraph, or the trumpet with the telephone, and we may be able to conceive a key which will unlock the mystery of why these long inhabited plains, valleys, and healthful plateaus remain such arid wastes; why these rich mines are left undeveloped; why these towns and cities hold their same monotonous round; why there is no seeking for better things, no improvement; why these Indians under Christian tutorage so absolutely, have not outgrown their disposition to worship every image of every thing under the heavens, as they did in their untaught wildness. Perhaps it is because the Catholic system is one glorifying and imitating the fathers. The very use of the word Saint, as applied to one and another worthy, and these new churches, new places, and new enterprises of the new world being all dedicated to, and called after, some one of them, is proof that the whole system of religion is one of living in and living over the dead past. If everything pertaining to this world is treated as wholly unworthy of us, and if we think of and desire only the world to come, we dwarf this present, God-given world, and its possibilities of development of mind and soul. Such is the Catholic religion. Under such a system we might expect the heroism of the past to be magnified and the present to be regarded as of little value. If by any means one has broken through the conventionalities of his age and made his mark, he is regarded as more than human; he becomes a divine man, a saint. But the self-depreciating worshiper never conceives that what Saint So-and-so has done, he himself may do, and never applies the past as a stimulus for present or future development. Thus the base principle of the whole Catholic system of religion is opposed to all progress. But added to this, their cultivation of ignorance, (if the expression may be allowed,) their fostering of superstition, their sales of indulgences, and their acceptance of forms of worship in lieu of the spirit, all these tend directly and surely against the higher progress of the human mind, and make their believers content to live in mud houses and eke out miserable existences without hope for better things.—Golden Censer. You'll never catch any of the golden fish that swim in the world's waters by standing with your hands in your pockets and watching another hold the pole. It is a thing that cannot be done. If you expect fish, you will have to dig your own bait, put the tempting morsel on your own hook, throw in your own line, hold your own rod and closely watch for the nibbles. Seeing another's cork go under, won't do you the least particle of good; loafing upon the shore and gaping at others while spreading and drawing nets, won't fill either your stomach or barrel. You might just as well attempt by taking hold of the straps of your boots to carry your sluggish avordupois over a mud puddle. The one is about as sensible as the other. You have got to fish for yourself—even "cutting bait" won't answer. It is the only pathway to success. Fish don't come for the whistling or the wishing. They are wary and have to be tempted. If you expect to have them, you have got to "go for them," in more senses than one. Do your own fishing. The world is a great herring pond, and your chance is as good as that of your neighbor, if you choose the right kind of bait, use diligence, have patience, and take advantage of tide and time. Golden fishes swim about in plenty and are caught, but another cannot do it for you. Every successful man owes independence to his individual energy and enterprise. Standing on a rock all the day and looking and hoping never yet filled a basket. Here is a story to the point and you can "hook" success upon it if you follow its precepts:— A young man stood listlessly watching some anglers on a bridge. He was poor and dejected. At last approaching a basket filled with wholesome looking fish, he sighed:— "If now I had these I would be happy. I could sell them for a good price, and buy me food and lodgings." "I will give you just as many, and just as good fish," said the owner, who had chanced to overhear his words, "if you will do me a trifling favor." "And what's that?" asked the other. "Only to tend this line till I come back, I wish to go on a short errand." The proposal was gladly accepted. The old man was gone so long that the young man began to be impatient. Meanwhile the hungry fish snapped greedily at the baited hook, and the young man lost all his depression in pulling them in; and when the owner of the line returned, he had caught a large number. Counting out from them as many as were in the basket, and presenting them to the young man, the old fisherman said:— "I fulfill my promise from the fish you have caught, to teach you whenever you see others earning what you need, to waste no time in fruitless wishing, but cast a line for yourself." God’s Help in Saving Souls
If we would succeed in the work of saving souls, we must secure the help of God. Change Is Not Improvement
To change and to be better are two different things. LESSON FOR PACIFIC COAST—SABBATH, APRIL 9.
By Ellen G. White
"After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water; whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." Many suffering from different maladies visited this pool; but so great was the crowd at the appointed time, that they rushed forward, trampling under foot men, women, and children, weaker than themselves. One man had been afflicted by an incurable disease for thirty-eight years, and he had repeatedly visited the pool. Those who pitied his helplessness would bear him to and fro at the time when the waters were supposed to be troubled. But those stronger than himself would rush in before him and seize the opportunity that he coveted. Jesus visited this retreat of misery, and his eye rested upon this helpless invalid. The poor creature was weak and desparing, but as the looked-for moment arrived, he gathered his feeble energies in a last effort to reach the water, but, just as he had almost gained his object, another stepped in before him. He crept back to his pallet to die. But a pitying face bends over him, saying, "Wilt thou be made whole?" The desponding man looked up, thinking it might be some one who had come to assist him into the pool; but the faint glow of encouragement faded out of his heart when he remembered that it was too late, his opportunity for that time was gone, and, in his state of sickness and exposure, he could scarcely hope that he might live to see another. He turned away wearily, saying, "Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool; but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me." Poor man! how could he hope to contend successfully with the selfish, scrambling crowd! Jesus did not ask this wretched sufferer to exercise faith in him; but with a voice of command said, "Rise, take up thy bed, and walk." A sudden vigor was communicated to the paralyzed cripple. His whole being was stirred with a healing power, new blood and strength leaped into every limb and member. He bounded to his feet in obedience to the Saviour's command, and stooped to take up his bed, which was only a simple rug and blanket. As he straightened himself again, with a sense of delight at standing upon his feet after so many years of helpless infirmity, he looked around for his deliverer, but he was nowhere to be seen. Jesus was lost in the crowd, and the restored paralytic feared that he would not know him again if he should see him. He was disappointed, for he longed to pour forth his gratitude to the stranger. As he hurried on toward Jerusalem, with firm, free step, praising God as he went, and rejoicing in his new-found strength, he met the Pharisees, and immediately related to them the wonderful cure he had experienced. He was surprised at the coolness with which they listened to his story. Presently they interrupted him by asking why he was carrying that bed on the Sabbath day. They sternly reminded him that it was not lawful for him to bear burdens upon the Lord's day. In his joy the man had forgotten that it was the Sabbath; yet he felt no condemnation for obeying the command of one who had power from God to perform so wonderful a miracle. He answered boldly, "He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk." The Pharisees were not delighted at the cure which had been effected upon this poor invalid of thirty-eight years. They overlooked the object of the wonderful miracle, and, with their characteristic bigotry, seized upon the act as a violation of the Sabbath law. They excused the restored man from blame, but appeared shocked at the guilt of him who had assumed the responsibility of ordering a man to take up his bed upon the Sabbath day. They asked him who it was that had done this thing, but he could not enlighten them on that subject. These rulers knew very well that only one person had shown himself able to do this deed; but they wished to get direct proof that it was Jesus, for they then hoped to be able to condemn him as a Sabbath-breaker. They considered that he had not only broken the law in healing the man on the Sabbath, but had committed an act of sacrilege in bidding him take up his bed and bear it away. Jesus did not come into the world to lessen the dignity of the law, but to exalt it. The Jews had perverted it by their traditions and misconceptions. They had made it a yoke of bondage. Their meaningless exactions and requirements had become a by-word among all other nations. Especially was the Sabbath hedged in by all manner of senseless restrictions which made that holy day almost unendurable. A Jew was not allowed to kindle a fire upon the Sabbath, nor even to light a candle on that day. The views of the people were so narrow that they had become slaves to their own useless regulations. They did not reflect that if these necessary duties of life were sins they were fully as guilty in employing others to perform them as in doing them themselves. They thought salvation was restricted to the Jews, and the condition of all others, being entirely hopeless, could neither be improved nor made worse. But a just God has given no commandment which cannot be consistently kept by all. Soon after, Jesus met the man he had healed in the temple. He had come to bring a trespass-offering, a sin-offering, and a thank-offering for the great mercy he had received. Jesus, finding him among the worshipers, made himself known to him. The great Physician addressed him with a timely warning, "Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." The healed man was overjoyed to behold his deliverer, and ignorant of the malice which the Jews held against Jesus, informed the Pharisees, who had before questioned him, that this was he who had wrought the wondrous cure. The Jewish dignitaries had only waited for proof that it was Jesus; from the first they had been confident that it could be no other. Now, a great uproar ensued in the court of the temple; for they sought to slay Jesus, but were prevented by the people, many of whom recognized in him a friend who had healed them from their infirmities and relieved their sorrows. RABBINICAL PRECEPTS CONCERNING THE SABBATH.
THE Scribes had elaborated from the command of Moses a vast array of prohibitions and injunctions, covering the whole of social, individual, and public life, and carried it to the extreme of ridiculous caricature. Lengthened rules were prescribed as to the kinds of knots which might legally be tied on Sabbath. The camel-driver's knot and the sailor's were unlawful, and it was equally illegal to tie or to loose them. A knot which could be untied with one hand might be undone. A shoe or sandal, a woman's cup, a wine or oil-skin, or a flesh-pot might be tied. A pitcher at a spring might be tied to the body-sash, but not with a cord. The quantity of food that might be carried on Sabbath from one place to another was duly settled. It must be less in bulk than a dried fig; if of honey, only as much as would anoint a wound; if water, as much as would make eye-salve; if paper, as much as would be put in a phylactery; if ink, as much as would form two letters. To kindle or extinguish a fire on the Sabbath was a great desecration of the day, nor was even sickness allowed to violate Rabbinical rules. It was forbidden to give an emetic on Sabbath—to set a broken bone, or put back a dislocated joint, though some Rabbis, more liberal, held that whatever endangered life made the Sabbath law void, "for the commands were given to Israel only that they might live by them." One who was buried under ruins on Sabbath, might be dug for and taken out, if alive, but if dead, he was to be left where he was till the Sabbath was over. The holy day began with sunset on Friday, and ended with the sunset of Saturday, but as the disappearance of the sun was the only mark of the time, its commencement was different on a hill-top and in a valley. If it were cloudy, the hens going to roost was the signal. The beginning and close of the Sabbath were announced by a trumpet from the Temple, and in the different towns. From the decline of the sun on Friday, to its setting, was Sabbath eve, and no work which would continue into the hours of the Sabbath, could be done in this interval. All food must be prepared, all vessels washed, and all lights kindled before sunset. The money girdle must be taken off, and all tools laid aside. "On Friday, before the beginning of the Sabbath," said one law, "no one must go out of his house with a needle or a pen, lest he forget to lay them aside before the Sabbath opens. Every one must also search his pockets at that time, to see that there is nothing left in them with which it is forbidden to go out on the Sabbath." The refinements of Rabbinical casuistry were, indeed, endless. To wear one kind of sandals was carrying a burden, while to wear another kind was not. One might carry a burden on his shoulder, but it must not be slung between two. It was unlawful to go out with wooden sandals or shoes which had nails in the soles, or with a shoe and a slipper, unless one foot were hurt. It was unlawful for any one to carry a loaf on the public street, but if two carried it, it was not unlawful. Even in hell the lost had rest from their torments on its sacred hours, and the waters of Bethesda might be troubled on other days, but were still and unmoved on this. In an insincere age such excessive strictness led to constant evasions by Pharisees and Sadducees alike. To escape the restrictions which limited a journey on Sabbath to 2,000 cubits from a town or city, they carried food on Friday evening to a spot that distance beyond the walls, and assumed, by a fiction, that this made that spot also their dwelling. They could thus on the Sabbath walk the full distance to it, and an equal distance beyond it, this journey being only the legal distance from the fictitious place of residence! To make it lawful to eat together on the Sabbath the Rabbis put chains across the two ends of a street, in which the members of a special fraternity lived, and called it a single dwelling! The priests and Rabbis, thus secretly indulgent to themselves, but austerely strict before the world, found an opportunity in the cure at Bethesda for parading their hollow puritanism, and at the same time raising a charge against Jesus, for the man had been healed on the Sabbath, and had been told to carry his sleeping-mat with him to his home. This was enough. Met in the street carrying his pallet, by one of these purists, he had been reprimanded for doing so as contrary to the law, and had shielded himself by the command of him who had miraculously cured him. It was not till some time after, when Jesus had come upon him in the temple, that he knew the name of his benefactor, for Jesus had hurried away from the pool, after curing him, to avoid exciting the multitude round. The above from Geikie's "Life of Christ," pp. 448-450, shows some of the many senseless restrictions which had been placed upon the Sabbath law in the time of Christ. Instead of being the blessing designed, they had made it a burden. As stated by another:— "Jesus answered their accusations by declaring, 'My father worketh hitherto, and I work.' All days are God's in which to carry out his great plans for the human race. If the Jews' interpretation of the law was correct, then Jehovah was at fault, whose work had upheld and quickened creation since first he laid the foundations of the earth. Should God forbid the sun to do its office upon the Sabbath, cut off its genial rays from warming the earth and nourishing vegetation? Must the system of worlds stand still through that holy day? Should he command the babbling brooks to stay their course from watering the fields and forests, and bid the advancing and receding waves to still their ceaseless ebbing and flowing? Must the wheat and corn stop growing, and the ripening cluster defer its purple bloom for a single day? Must the waving trees and the delicate flowers put forth no bud nor blossom on the Sabbath? "Jesus sought to impress upon the narrow minds of the Jews a sense of the folly of their view of the Sabbath. Heaven's work never ceases for a moment, and men should never rest from doing good. The Sabbath law forbids labor on the sanctified rest-day of the Lord. The toil that gains a livelihood must cease; no labor for worldly pleasure or profit is lawful upon the Lord's day; but the work of Christ in healing the sick did honor to the holy Sabbath." CONSISTENCY OF THE CHRISTIAN STATESMAN.
By James White
WE have several times had occasion to speak of the inconsistency of the Christian Statesman, the organ of the party which seeks a Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. We now have occasion to call attention to its consistency. We scarcely know how we should regard this: whether to rejoice, or not. When the principles of a party are wrong, we are often pleased to see them act inconsistently, as they thereby preserve the integrity of their action. But on the whole we are pleased that the Statesman has at last taken a consistent position, and that it can no longer hide behind a profession of good will to those Christians for whom it has no feelings of good will in fact. In a discussion with Eld. W. H. Littlejohn, the editor of the Statesman charged the Seventh-day Adventists with inconsistency because they opposed the Religious Amendment of the Constitution. He claimed that as long as we recognized the Bible as the supreme law, we ought to join in an effort to incorporate it in our civil government so as to bring to its determination every question of right or wrong under our government. But we insist, and always have insisted, that the Religious Amendment party have never sought to bring questions in our civil policy to the test of the Bible. The only test proposed is that of the decisions of our civil courts, and, of course, they are expected to give force to the ideas of the persons who make the law, that is, of the majority. The one thing, more than all others, for which the Statesman is laboring, is the enforcement of the Sabbath by our general government. But it wants the "Christian Sabbath," or as some of their writers term it, the "American Sabbath," thus sustained by the authority of the Constitution. But the Bible knows nothing of a "Christian Sabbath," or of an "American Sabbath." The commandment of God as written in the Bible, says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Would the Statesman and its party be willing to have the Federal Courts decide the Sabbath controversy by the plain reading of the law of God? We well know they would not. They would have our government administered on an entirely new basis, and one unknown to any government heretofore, either human or divine. They would have the courts render their decisions, not by the terms of the law, but by inferences drawn from that which is not law. We have further claimed that if their ideas were carried into practice the result would be a persecution of the minority for their religious principles; an entire subversion of the rights of those who choose to keep the Bible Sabbath—the seventh day; for that is the only day which the Bible recognizes as the weekly Sabbath. But the Statesman, while it advocated the enforcement of Sunday as the Sabbath to the entire exclusion of the seventh day, still claimed that there would be no persecution; that nobody's rights would be infringed upon in the least; and that the observers of the seventh day were needlessly and foolishly alarmed at the prospect of the success of the Religious Amendment party. Speaking of the Seventh-day Adventists, it used the following language:— "From the beginning of the National Reform movement, they have regarded it as the first step toward the persecution which they as keepers of the seventh day will endure when our Sabbath laws are revived and enforced. One cannot but smile at their apprehensions of the success of a movement which would not harm a hair of their heads, but their fears are sincere enough for all that." Here was its inconsistency. We could not give it credit for so great a degree of ignorance as would be necessary in any one to prevent his seeing that their efforts would lead to the very results which it disclaimed. Indeed, one of the writers of that party, who was a vice-president of the association, used the following language:— "But it may be asked, Would not the Jew be denied equality of rights by legislation protecting the Christian Sabbath, and ignoring the Jewish?" The Statesman affected to smile at the fears of those who apprehended a denial of anybody's rights under their amendment. But the writer of the above question gave a quite different answer, as follows:— "The answer is, We are not a Jewish, but a Christian, nation; therefore our legislation must be conformed to the institutions and spirit of Christianity. This is absolutely necessary from the nature of the case." Thus "their witness agreed not together." And now we come to a test of results. The laws of Pennsylvania are both unjust and severely strict against those who keep the seventh day. At different times members of the Seventh-day Baptist church have been fined and imprisoned for laboring upon Sunday, while they kept the seventh day religiously and conscientiously. Senator Jones, of Philadelphia, has labored with a noble zeal for the passage of a bill to protect in their religious rights those who keep the seventh day. In the Statesman of March 3, 1881, is the following communication (copied) with remarks by the editor:— "The accompanying bill, No. 122, has just been handed to us, with the statement that it has already passed a second reading in the legislature of Pennsylvania. Its enactment will tend toward the destruction of the Christian Sabbath in this commonwealth. It is very desirable that the bill should be understood by our people, and that numerous and emphatic protests be adopted and forwarded immediately. We therefore request that you publish it.
"Yours truly, FELIX R. BRUNOT, ELLIOTT E. SWIFT." Most of our readers will recognize Mr. Brunot as the leading spirit of the Amendment Association, and its President for a number of years. The bill referred to is entitled, "An act to protect religious liberty and to provide for the relief of persons who observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and to exempt them from the penalties of the act of Assembly of April 22, 1794."
This bill is one for relief and exemption from certain penalties under certain conditions. It does not propose to give religious equality to those who keep the seventh day. It is a bill for toleration merely. But even this is too much for the advocates of the Religious Amendment of the Constitution. The Statesman, in its comments, says:— "There is undoubtedly a hardship in imposing penalties upon those who, religiously observing the seventh day as the Sabbath, follow their usual avocations on the first day, or Sunday. But the question arises whether it is desirable to recognize two Sabbaths. The act of 1794, forbidding worldly employment on Sunday, has been binding on the Jews and all others who keep the seventh day as their Sabbath. The answer to the facts set forth in the preamble to the bill under discussion is, that declarations and acts in favor of liberty of conscience are not inconsistent with Sunday laws. As a civil and political institution, the establishment and regulation of the Sabbath is within the powers of the civil government, and Sunday laws are not intended to enforce religion, but to protect the social customs and institutions of the people. There cannot be a separate Sabbath for every sect which chooses to fix on a different day, and the interests of the few must always yield to the demands of the many." The editor approaches the subject mincingly, as if at least half ashamed to publicly go back on its past profession of good will to Sabbath-keepers. It might with good reason be ashamed of the evasions contained in the above paragraph. Why does it persistently ask for governmental protection of the first day as the Christian Sabbath if it now says, "Sunday laws are not intended to enforce religion, but to protect the social customs and institutions of the people"? Is it ready to admit that the keeping of Sunday is not a religious act, but Sunday, after all, is not a Christian Sabbath, but a Sabbath of custom—an institution of the people? The keeping of the seventh day is a religious act, a duty plainly enjoined in the Bible. If, then, Sunday laws are not enforced in the interest of religion, how can the Statesman claim that the amendment movement, which it has before avowed will result in the protection and enforcement of Sunday, has for its object the subordination of all things in our government to the Bible and its institutions? Again it says "that declarations and acts in favor of liberty of conscience are not inconsistent with the Sunday laws." Oh, of course not; for what right has any one to have a conscience which will not accept of Sunday as a substitute for the Bible Sabbath? We are reminded of the oft-repeated declaration of principle which actuated the early settlers of New England, to grant to every one the right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience—provided that his conscience did not lead him to be a Baptist or a Quaker! "According to his own conscience," provided his conscience co-incides with ours, or will be guided by ours. This is the religious liberty advocated by the Statesman. We are sick of this religio-political casuistry, indulged in by the Statesman and its party. It is a casuistry worthy of the Jesuits, and its tendency is toward a Jesuitical institution, namely, the Inquisition. Step by step the "true inwardness" of their system of ethics comes to light, and every step justifies the estimate we have already put upon the object of that party. We are continually receiving confirmations of our views of the prophecy of chapters 13 and 14 of the Revelations, and of the coming time of trouble, to be brought by wicked powers, upon those who "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."
But we have no fear for the result, for the Lord "preserveth the souls of the saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked." Ps. 97 : 10. "Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him." Ps. 2 : 20. J. H. W. HAVE MIRACLES CEASED?
By James White
This question of an inquirer is answered in the Examiner and Chronicle by William Hague, D. D. In this answer are the following words:— “Miracles have ceased. It was divinely predicted that they should cease. In indoctrinating the Greek converts at Corinth, in whose view the faculty of speech in foreign tongues had come to be the chief exponent of the miracle-working power, Paul declared the endowment to be transient, not, like the interior graces wrought by the Spirit, abiding forever; and so, in marked contrast, he affirmed of the ‘tongues’ (1 Cor. 13:8), ‘they shall cease.’ They did cease. The endowment fulfilled its purpose and passed away.” Even though the Doctor’s assertion were an undisputed fact, we dispute the right of even a D. D. to thus misconstrue and misapply the words of inspiration. We can easily understand the apostle’s words, quoted by Dr. Hague, if we take them in their connection. We read as follows:— “Charity never faileth; but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” 1 Cor. 13:8-12. According to this scripture these things shall cease or vanish away “when that which is perfect is come.” But when that perfect is come, then they who “prophesy in part,” and even with the gift of prophecy “see through a glass darkly,” shall see face to face, and know even as they are known. Has such a time come? It is a truth plainly revealed in the Scriptures that “the saints shall judge the world.” But they are not now qualified for such an office, because they do not understand the motives and intentions of their fellow-men—they cannot discern “the thoughts and intents of the heart.” But by and by, “when this mortal shall put on immortality,” present impediments shall be removed; and in view of that, the apostle enjoins, “Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come.” 1 Cor. 4:5. When the Lord comes, and the saints are “changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” then they who saw as through a glass and prophesied in part, will know as they are known, and “that which is in part” will no longer be needed. It “shall be done away.” We insist that this is the plain meaning and intent of the apostle’s language; and, therefore, if these gifts151 of the Spirit have ceased, either in whole or in part, the reason must be found outside of what Paul wrote to the Corinthians. J. H. W.